• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hello from a non-skeptic

Garrette said:
And now a short thread has been deleted entirely without comment. Can't recall the name, but Charles started it to explain how open minded he is and how we aren't; a poster named Florence answered to say that if we would just look at the reincarnation testimony of children we would believe; Charles posted again, then I responded to both.

Less than an hour later, the thread is gone.


I have to add, though, that dlode is doing very well in politely shooting down the Quantum Nonsense being spouted in at least one thread.
Click to expand...

God Bless this little fortress
Sorry, Garrette, I should have saved it but I never suspected it would go bye bye. Charles just does not know when to quit.

Did you see the remark by the mod? "Really, Garrette, who is the real troll? Don't answer, just think about it."
 
Last edited:
Olowkow said:
God Bless this little fortress
Sorry, Garrette, I should have saved it but I never suspected it would go bye bye. Charles just does not know when to quit.

Did you see the remark by the mod? "Really, Garrette, who is the real troll? Don't answer, just think about it."
Click to expand...
The mod really said that? No, I didn't see it.

I did suspect some kind of reaction when I posted, though, because it was rather direct and unflattering to Charles, but still....
 
Garrette said:
The mod really said that? No, I didn't see it.

I did suspect some kind of reaction when I posted, though, because it was rather direct and unflattering to Charles, but still....
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm not sure which mod, (Overseas??) No, wrong one. It was there for just a few minutes, posted about 6 minutes after your post (IIRC), then on my next refresh, about 3 minutes later, the thread was gone. It struck me as extremely odd. Any fair minded person should see the hypocrisy in Charles' post. He was concerned for the "safety" of the members. He also stated that he had no idea of the size of the skeptical community, and never had heard of the "million dollar prize" before.
 
Last edited:
When Mr Boden invited us to debate him on the other forum I replied "It is not my habit to seek out people who disagree with me in order to explain to them the error of their ways, I only engage with people who come to forums like this one to do just that." The more I've seen and heard about what is going on over there the more sure I am I made the right call.

Some vulnerable people need forums where their beliefs aren't seriously challenged, and this one seems to have been deliberately set up to get people to share their supposed reincarnation stories in a non-judgemental atmosphere. I wouldn't be surprised if its originators/mods are not believers themselves, but are collecting data for their own purposes. Whether that's the case or not, I suspect they're pretty annoyed with Mr Boden for deliberately bringing a boat load of intelligent sceptics to their little forum.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
... I suspect they're pretty annoyed with Mr Boden for deliberately bringing a boat load of intelligent sceptics to their little forum.
Click to expand...


Yup, I agree that's probably the case, with mods and admins locking and deleting threads right and left.

Kind of amusing, really. Especially as no one has been rude or hasn't followed the guidelines.
 
Pixel42 said:
Some vulnerable people need forums where their beliefs aren't seriously challenged, and this one seems to have been deliberately set up to get people to share their supposed reincarnation stories in a non-judgemental atmosphere. I wouldn't be surprised if its originators/mods are not believers themselves, but are collecting data for their own purposes. Whether that's the case or not, I suspect they're pretty annoyed with Mr Boden for deliberately bringing a boat load of intelligent sceptics to their little forum.
Click to expand...

I find that very disturbing, given the fact that a lot of stories there involve children. No problem with everyone having her/his own set of beliefs, but dragging children into it is just sick.

Instead of examining those things a bit more critically, there they are pushing each other more and more into that belief. Instead of telling the parents "well, your child might just have a good imagination", they are applauding them to have an allegedly reincarnated child.

From my POV, most (if not all) those childs want to have attention. So they make up stories, and thus get attention. Instead of telling them "well, that's a bit too far fetched" they actually go all "wohoo, great, gimme more!". I think that sends the wrong signals to the child: The more you make up, the more they love you, the more attention you get.

But then, that's just me... In any case, the way even the slightest skepticism is handled over there is, in my opinion, really disgusting. I found it always strange that a lot of woo's complain about others suppressing their views, while it is them who do exactly that most of the time.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Garrette said:
I saw this last time. Thanks for asking her, though it didn't yield an answer.
Click to expand...

I didn't really expect an answer - I was hoping it might raise doubts in others, though given the rules and raison d'etre of the forum, it seems unlikely.

I'm going to continue contributing in a non-confrontational sceptical way until I or they tire of my presence there.
 
Hey, dlorde, thanks for setting the record straight on the Sagan quote. I particularly enjoyed that. :)

ETA: Congrats also on keeping the discussion so civil, as have the other "visiting skeptics." You're making all of us look good. ;)
 
Last edited:
Sigh. This really is rather disappointing. When this was posted

Truthseeker said:
I doubt any of them would have the fortitude to come over here and join. It's easier to mock from afar. Besides, it's easier to be a bully on your own turf when your friends have got your back.
Click to expand...

I expected they would at least respond in an interesting way. You know, gang up on the skeptics to exact some righteous vengeance upon them, or something. Instead, they just launch off random comments about skeptics being idiots, quote wooish philosophy and slink away when confronted.

I'm predicting censorship will slam down soon. That community doesn't look like it can withstand actual skeptics for long.
 
AdMan said:
Hey, dlorde, thanks for setting the record straight on the Sagan quote. I particularly enjoyed that. :)
Click to expand...
It's always good to get things in context ;)

ETA: Congrats also on keeping the discussion so civil, as have the other "visiting skeptics." You're making all of us look good. ;)
Click to expand...

It'll take more than my impeccable manners to make you lot look good, but I'm always civil - it can't hurt, can it? :hypnotize
 
Sorry to keep harping on this, but family history is a hobby of mine - I belong to the same genealogy site as Charles Boden! - and in all the confusion I somehow missed this:

The fourth Lord of Appin, Duncan Stewart (1515-1547), married Janet Gordon, daughter of Lord John Gordon (1477-1517) and Lady Margaret Jane Stewart (1493-1517), eldest but "illegitimate" daughter of King James IV and Lady Margaret Drummond (1476-1501). I am descended from the 2nd son of Duncan Stewart 6th of Appin (b. abt 1570), John Stewart.
Click to expand...

No, Charles, you are mistaken. Lord John Gordon was Janet Gordon's half-brother, not her father. He and Margaret Stewart had three sons - Alexander, James and George - but no daughters. How on earth could you have failed to notice this? If I'd noticed the above paragraph sooner, instead of wasting time starting from scratch by looking up the Gordon/Stewart connection for myself, I could have exposed your error in five minutes instead of the two hours or so it took. This tells me that you either haven't researched your own family history very thoroughly or simply ignored historical facts that don't mesh with your version of reality. You are simply not descended from King James IV, which is how you interpreted the medium's "prophecy" of Diana's death. The whole thing is one fantasy piled on top of another.
 
Last edited:
Alice Shortcake said:
Sorry to keep harping on this, but family history is a hobby of mine - I belong to the same genealogy site as Charles Boden! - and in all the confusion I somehow missed this:



No, Charles, you are mistaken. Lord John Gordon was Janet Gordon's half-brother, not her father. He and Margaret Stewart had three sons - Alexander, James and George - but no daughters. How on earth could you have failed to notice this? If I'd noticed the above paragraph sooner, instead of wasting time starting from scratch by looking up the Gordon/Stewart connection for myself, I could have exposed your error in five minutes instead of the two hours or so it took. This tells me that you either haven't researched your own family history very thoroughly or simply ignored historical facts that don't mesh with your version of reality. You are simply not descended from King James IV, which is how you interpreted the medium's "prophecy" of Diana's death. The whole thing is one fantasy piled on top of another.
Click to expand...
Alice Shortcake - the genealogy schtick from Charles is merely his attempt to convince us that reincarnation is true.

He doesn't think that he's descended from this line, he believes he is a reincarnation of a Stewart prince.

The following is part of a post of his relating a uija board session.
Charles Boden said:
"Is reincarnation a reality?" I asked him, at one point, influenced by what I had read in the book. The glass moved to "yes".

"And could you tell me who I was in a past incarna-tion?" I asked.
The glass began to spell out the letters: P-r-i-n-c-e C-h-a-r-l-e-s E-d-w-a-r-d S-t-e-w-a-r-t.
Click to expand...
This why he's making such a hash of his family history - he's tring to distort historical facts to support his belief in reincarnation.
 
Charles claims to be descended from Duncan Stewart, 6th of Appin. This Duncan Stewart was directly descended from Duncan Stewart, 4th of Appin, and his wife Janet Gordon, the lady Charles would have us believe was the granddaughter of King James IV.

Therefore he is claiming descent from James IV.
 
Last edited:
Alice Shortcake said:
Yes, I'd gathered that - I just wanted to save others the trouble of looking up the details of his dishonesty!
Click to expand...
Cool. I wanted to make sure that posters had not forgotten the lengths Charles has gone to to support his Stewart reincarnation delusion.

First he claims he has childhood memories from the Stewart period initiated by his father singing a folk song - that was written after the death of the Prince he claims to be a reincarnation of.

Then he claims that a ouija board session "confirmed" that he is a reincarnation of a Stewart prince.

Lastly, a medium, who he's known for over 12 years and is well aware of his Royal reincarnation delusion, uses that to spice up a reading by throwing in a "Royal connection" in the reading. Perfect cold reading use of CONfirmation bias.
 
EHocking said:
Cool. I wanted to make sure that posters had not forgotten the lengths Charles has gone to to support his Stewart reincarnation delusion.

First he claims he has childhood memories from the Stewart period initiated by his father singing a folk song - that was written after the death of the Prince he claims to be a reincarnation of.

Then he claims that a ouija board session "confirmed" that he is a reincarnation of a Stewart prince.

Lastly, a medium, who he's known for over 12 years and is well aware of his Royal reincarnation delusion, uses that to spice up a reading by throwing in a "Royal connection" in the reading. Perfect cold reading use of CONfirmation bias.
Click to expand...

Ooops! I deleted the quoted post and subsitituted another, hence the confusion.
 
I think Charles is trying to use a string of amazing coincidences to back up his reincarnation claim.

The problem is that the coincidences do not hold up. He has a childhood memory of a past-life memory triggered by a song that didn't exist during the time period of the supposed past life. He has his genetic heritage -- which has nothing to do with reincarnation anyway other than coincidence, but gives him a supposed "connection" to the British royal family -- only, that genetic heritage is not correct and would be tenuous even if it was. He has the Ouija board session which he's totally convinced is real, but he has not responded to the proposal of easily testing the Ouija board.

In his mind, the fact that he has so many coincidences makes his case stronger. Never mind that all of them are weak, incorrect, or unsupported. And never mind that there is a wealth of information on how people are misled by these experiences.

The thing that puzzles me is, does he really think that his collection of personal experiences amounted to some kind of evidence that would blow away the skeptics? As if it was any different than all the other "proof" that has been offered over the years? The attitude that he (and a few others there too apparently) seems to have is 'wow, I bet they've never heard of a spooky message from a Ouija board before!'

Oh well, he can read and write, so that's a positive. And he seemed fine until he started all the nonsense about feeling attacked and threatened. He may convince himself, if he repeats the lie long enough, that it was true. He may even manage to rewrite his memories until he can remember actual threats! But at the moment, he knows he's lying. And it's a mean, passive-aggressive way to back out of a lost cause, to try to slander the other side because he couldn't support his claims.
 
Last edited:
iknownothing said:
The thing that puzzles me is, does he really think that his collection of personal experiences amounted to some kind of evidence that would blow away the skeptics? As if it was any different than all the other "proof" that has been offered over the years? The attitude that he (and a few others there too apparently) seems to have is 'wow, I bet they've never heard of a spooky message from a Ouija board before!'
Click to expand...

I think Charles is sincere in his supernatural beliefs. I think he was insincere about pretty much everything else.

I don't think he expected his "evidence" to convince anyone here. I think that what he was counting on was that he could "win" the argument because anecdotes are, generally speaking, irrefutable. Hey, we weren't there when the medium made her "prediction" to Charles, so we can't dispute it, and explain that, skeptics!

In Charles's world view, the only possible answers to his anecdotal evidence are: (a) yes, that really happened, but it's just an amazingly unlikely coincidence; (b) you're lying; or (c) you're delusional. (a) is a weak rebuttal, so he claims victory over anyone who says that, and (b) and (c) are "mean" and therefore he claims victory because obviously the meanie skeptics can't rebut him and are resorting to insults.

Charles either doesn't understand, or pretends not to understand, things like confirmation bias, sample sizes, the Texas Sharpshooter Effect, the fallibility of human memory, etc. So when posters here offered those kinds of answers, Charles desperately tried to shoehorn those into his three categories above. That's why he was so insistent on claiming that everyone was accusing him of lying, no matter how many times we said that wasn't the case. (And yes, I do think he's a liar, but about his intentions here and his "used to be a skeptic" claim. I think he really truly believes that this medium predicted Diana's death, etc.) Failing that, he declared that the responses were some other type of mean, personal attack, so that he could declare victory and retreat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom